If you are too lazy to read or prefer to watch what these torture memos all mean. <div><iframe height="339" width="425" src="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22425001/vp/30356488#30356488" frameborder="0" scrolling="no"></iframe><p style="font-size:11px; font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; color: #999; margin-top: 5px; background: transparent; text-align: center; width: 425px;">Visit msnbc.com for <a style="text-decoration:none !important; border-bottom: 1px dotted #999 !important; font-weight:normal !important; height: 13px; color:#5799DB !important;" href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com">Breaking News</a>, <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032507" style="text-decoration:none !important; border-bottom: 1px dotted #999 !important; font-weight:normal !important; height: 13px; color:#5799DB !important;">World News</a>, and <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032072" style="text-decoration:none !important; border-bottom: 1px dotted #999 !important; font-weight:normal !important; height: 13px; color:#5799DB !important;">News about the Economy</a></p></div>
Tenet on Interrogation, Congress From page 242 of his book: "After we received written Department of Justice guidance on the interrogation issue, we briefed the chairman and ranking members of our oversight committees. While they were not asked to formally approve the program, as it was conducted under the president's unilateral authorities, I can recall no objections being raised."
This doesn't say what specifics they were briefed on, and it is by Tenet who we know lied about what information they got from the torture of KSM and others as well. But, for the record any Democrats that signed off on torture should be prosecuted as well. I don't care who they are.
This has been said repeatedly, but it makes no impact on basso. Many of us view torture as a legal and moral line that should never be crossed or supported by anyone. basso views it as a partisan Repub vs. Dem issue. He thinks he's being clever by bringing up possible Dem complicity in W's torture regime and he assumes that because of that complicity, Dems will shut up about torture... after all, that's what good Republicans would do right? That this kind of thinking has infested the modern Republican Party tells you everything you need to know about what they value and what they think of people.
I'm a little surprised that no one has mentioned that Obama didn't release the memos for the hell of it. He was ordered to by a court, and strangely he seems to abide by court decisions. Basso you wanna whine about these memos, blame the federal judge that ordered them released. Or the ACLU which sued under the FOIA for their release. But blaming Obama is like blaming Iraqis when the Saudis attack us.
No. It means he would like the release of anything that would cause Dems embarrassment. That, in his view, would be adherence to the rule of law. Anything about the actual torturing of people or the administration officials who advocated it or the laws that were broken would harm our national security, evolve into a witch hunt, and be unpatriotic.
i think we need to have an honest debate, on whether the techniques Bush authorized constitute "torture" and on what those techniques accomplished, if anything. Obama has given us 1/4 a loaf, just the basic that KSM and AZ were waterboarded (and there's a lot of debate about what the 183 times really means). now let's see the 2nd third of the story- what was accomplished. then we can decide whether there was torture, and whether the ends justifies the means. but the silly posturing going on now accomplishes nothing. as i said earlier in this thread- Obama opened this can of worms- he needs now to let us see all the evidence.
Let's have the debate. Waterboarding is illegal and torture. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/02/AR2007110201170.html http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_701880744/Waterboarding.html As to what we learned from waterboarding... We know that we didn't learn anything new from KSM or AZ. Furthermore what we gained from waterboarding doesn't change whether it is legal, or if it is torture.
Since we're blasting from the past CASE CLOSED seriously, i heard this Tues or Wed on MSNBC and I was thinking why hasn't anyone brought this up before or why didn't anyone bring it up when the bush admin was trying to get the technique approved.
let's go back to the future. [rquoter]President Palin's Quandary: To Prosecute Or Not by MATT LEWIS April 23, 2013 OBAMA ADMINISTRATION OFFICIALS TO FACE PROSECUTION WASHINGTON – The Justice Department announced today that charges could be filed against numerous Obama Administration officials as a result of last year's terror attack in Los Angeles. In announcing the indictments, Attorney General John Cornyn said that top officials showed "gross and purposeful negligence" by releasing perpetrators of the attacks from the Guantanamo Bay prison camp and demanding that interrogation tactics be softened against chief planner Mehmet al-Meshugeneh, who had already revealed that a major attack was being planned against a major U.S. sporting event. "By purposefully disregarding crucial intelligence, and in releasing known participants in the plot into Saudi custody, numerous government officials took action which made the Staples Center bombing possible," Cornyn said. He went on to note that, "numerous individuals in the Departments of Defense, Justice, and Homeland Security knowingly pursued policies which would endanger the lives of Americans. They placed their political priorities above the safety of the citizens of this country, and thousands of innocent people died as a result. These people must be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law." At the White House, Press Secretary Adam Brickley said that President Sarah Palin stands firmly behind the decision. "It's not as if we relish the thought of prosecuting members of the previous administration," Brickley said, "but, at this point, there is a clearly established precedent – set in place by the Obama Administration themselves – which says that government officials must be held accountable if they contributed in any way to major breaches of the law. In this case, the individuals under investigation do appear to have purposefully allowed these terrorists to continue their actions – prioritizing international public opinion over the lives of the American people. So, while this may be a politically charged issue, there is a real need to prosecute." Ironically, it appears that the highest ranking official who could face prosecution is former Attorney General Eric Holder, who personally dropped the state's case against Mr. al-Meshugeneh after declaring his capture in Afghanistan illegal. Al-Meshugeneh later admitted that, at the time of his release, he had already told the government of his role in planning the attack which killed almost 10,000 people, including the entire Los Angeles Lakers and Dallas Mavericks basketball squads. Holder was also the primary force in prosecuting Bush Administration officials who issued legal opinions supporting waterboarding and other harsh interrogation tactics. As such, it appears that he actually set the precedent under which he may now be prosecuted himself. Public opinion polls show 62 percent of Americans support prosecution of at least some Obama Administration officials. [/rquoter]
Wouldn't a trial and / or hearings do that? What better way of making the argument that the torture was necessary than to bring those who did it before a court of law, or at least an investigative committee, and have them make their case.
I've been avoid saying that the only thing that can save the republican party is a terrorist attack, and they know it and they are all but openly wishing for it. I was just waiting for proof. there you have it. in their dream world of a palin presidency, they're rooting for a terrorist attack.
